is the danish model our future version 2.ppt [read-only]180 200 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990...
Post on 21-Jul-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
Antimicrobial Use in Swine
Is the Danish Model Our Future?
John Waddell, DVM
Sutton Veterinary Clinic
Sutton, Nebraska
“Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.” -Yogi
Numbers of pigs in Denmark from 1945-2000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Num
ber o
f pig
s (m
illio
ns)
Danish pig production
11.3
14.416.3
22.6 22.5 22.4 23 24
0
5
10
15
20
25
1970 1980 1990 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Mill
. Pig
s
2
Number of pig producers in Denmark - 1960 to 2000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Farm
s w
ith p
igs
(100
0's)
WORLD PORK PRODUCTIONIN SELECTED COUNTRIES 2001
0123456789
Denm
ark
Canada
USA
Germ
any
Sweden
Netherlands
France
Spain
Ireland
UK
Source: Danske Slagterier, infosvin
Mil.tons
Hyography and demographyCanadaCanada DenmarkDenmark
Population: approx. 30 mio. people
Pig production: approx. 25.2 mio
Area: approx. 9.97 mio km²
approx. 5 mio. people
approx. 23.5 mio
approx. 44.000 km²
U.S.• 100.3 M pigs/year
• 71,000 producers
Iowa• 144,700 km2
• 28.8 M pigs/year
Denmark• 43,000 km2
• 23 M pigs/year
• 13,200 producers
3
Quality of Danish
1. Meat percentage
2. Meat quality (pH, waterbinding capacity, colour)
3. Uniformity
4. Supplier service
5. Residues
6. Production conditions, animal welfare etc.
The Danish breeding program
100 years of continuous, coordinated genetic improvement
Operated by the National Committee for Pigs
8750 sows in nucleus herds
On-farm and central station testing
BLUP And Multi-Trait analysis carried out centrally
Genetic improvement worth $2.00/market hog/year approx.
Genetic progress in litter size
10.010.511.011.512.012.513.013.514.0
86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
No
. o
f p
igle
ts b
orn
/lit
ter
Large White Landrace
• no salmonella • no antibiotic growth promotors• no hormones• no meat and bonemeal• specified chemicals on crops• GMO ?
Food safety
4
Residues of antibiotics
% P
osi ti
v
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
Japan USA Canada UK Sweden Denmark
Swine density in different countries
050
100150200250300350400450500
Denm
ark
Canada
USA
Germ
any
Sweden
Netherlands
France
Spain
Ireland
UK
904Pigs/km²
COST OF PRODUCTIONIN SELECTED COUNTRIES
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Canad
aUSA
Irelan
dSp
ain
Denmar
k
Franc
e
Nether
lands
German
yUK
Swed
en
Feed Labour OtherSource: Danske Slagterier, infosvin
DKR/kg
Why the Danes are so successful
Integrated, cooperative structure
Good communication between all sectors
Major investment in R & D
Producers own processing and get the margin from it
A total focus on quality and customer needs
The industry is pro-active and anticipates change
5
What will limit Danish expansion?
Environmental constraints
Increased production costs
• EU & DK legislation, especially on welfare
• Restrictions on production enhancement tools
The Danish Welfare System
• No gestation stalls after 4 weeks post mating.
• Tail docking by prescription only! (and then only half the tail)
• Bedding and limited amount of slatted floor• No shoulder sores.• Strictly enforced space requirements
Denmark – medicines controlProducers must have 12 vet visits / year
Health report with action plan
Veterinarian can only supply treatments for short period
Medicines must be purchased from a pharmacy
2000 – VETSTAT scheme to monitor amount / type of medicines used
No preventative use of antimicrobials!
6
Removal of Growth Promoters in Denmark
1995 National ban on avoparcinVoluntary agreement between NCPP and the feedstuff industry to minimize the use of AGP’s
1998 National ban on virginiamycin (Jan)Voluntary agreement re. finishers (Mar)National tax on AGP’s (Sep) about $2 per pigAction plan to phase out AGP’s for weaners as of 1-1- 2000
1999 EU ban: tylosin, bacitracin, spiramycin and virginiamycinEU ban: olaquindox and carbadox
2000 Voluntary agreement to ban AGP’s for weaners (DK) 2001 Danmap antimicrobial use data collected by Vetstat2003 Increased use in some antibiotics brings on tighter controls2005 Further restrictions will include ionophores
Danish Total Animal Antibiotic Use
4856 57
62
81
94 95102106 107
49
12
0 0 0 00
20
40
60
80
100
120
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Medicatio n Growth Promotion
Decrease Antibiotic Use?
Total Antimicrobials for Treatment in Denmark
0100002000030000400005000060000700008000090000
100000
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001
Kg
activ
e in
gred
ient
TotalTetracyclinePenicillinMacrolide
Decreased Antibiotic Use?
Change in Antimicrobial Use for Treatment v. 1997 Baseline
0100002000030000400005000060000700008000090000
100000
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Kg
activ
e in
gred
ient
TotalTetracyclinePenicillinMacrolide
7
Results of the ban for finishers
• Over all, few problems• Ileitis caused some problems for some
farms• Increased in laboratory submissions and
diagnosis of ileitis.• A “flattening” of ADG curves occurred• No public outcry from producers• Minor effect on productivity
Percent Change Nursery Mortality v. 1998 Baseline
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1998 1999 2000 2001
Percent Change Finisher Mortalityv. 1997 Baseline
0%2%4%6%
8%10%12%14%
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Niels Kjeldsen, Head of Dept. (Nutrition, Reproduction), The National Committee of Pig ProductionDenmark
At What Cost?
Ileitis as a diagnosis in DenmarkIleitis as a diagnosis in Denmark
1.80.8
1.7 1.32.5 2.2 2.1
3.2
10.39.5
12.5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1stQtr 98
2ndQtr 98
3rdQtr 98
4thQtr 98
1stQtr 99
2ndQtr 99
Jul-99 Aug-99
Sep-99
Oct-99
Nov-99
% o
f dia
gnos
es
ADEs removedfrom starter/grower
DS Laboratory - Kjellerup
Industry experience of removing Industry experience of removing ADEsADEs
8
AGP ban for finishers (30-100 kg)- conclusions
1) Overall only few problems.
2) Existing know-how sufficient to solve problems.
3) ”What’s the big deal?”
Kjeldsen 2002
Results of the ban for weaners
• Outbreaks of diarrhoea in nurseries– Ileitis was allowed to express itself– Post weaning treatments went up about
250%Larger spread in weight at transferLower weight at transferIncreased mortalityDecreased average daily gains
Nursery ADG and Days to 30 kg
395400405410415420425430
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Gra
ms
81
82
83
84
85
86
ADG Days to 30 kg
Percent Change Nursery Mortality v. 1998 Baseline
-5%
0%
5%
10%15%
20%
25%
30%
1998 1999 2000 2001
9
What producers have done:
Increased weaning age by about 3 days
Reduced ration density (protein/energy)
Utilized more therapeutic antimicrobials
Practice limit feeding where possible
Added Zn oxide and organic acids to diets
What Danish producers and vets say:
Resist the calls for bans
They must try to recoup losses via marketing perception of higher quality
They have learned to adapt
Their perception of U.S. production is one of extremely high level of antibiotic use
They hope our government bans ours too!
Estimated Costs of a Ban in the US
• $1 to $2 per head in the finishing phase• $2 to $3 per head in the weaner stage• Hayes and Jensen estimated $4.50 to
$5.00 per head in the U.S.
The results of the experiment• Public Health Benefit?
– No positive effect on Salmonella resistance
– Reduction in resistance in pig isolates
– Negative effect on pig health and welfare
– Slight reduction in food borne illnesses
• Decrease antibiotic use?– Danish antibiotic use is on the rise
– U.S. does not have flexible feed medication labeling
– Unintended consequence - increase in antibiotic use
• Improved marketing?– That is the Danish producers only benefit of the ban!
10
Bottom line• The “Precautionary Principle”
– “When in doubt….don’t!”
– Replaces good science
• Minimizing exposure makes more sense
– Improved hygiene
– Consumer education
• Follow the Danish “experiment”???– That is exactly what it turned out to be….an
experiment!
Production Changes Summary
• More labor• Increased cost of production• More antibiotic use in weaned pigs• Increased need for better management
Is this our future?• Our marketing system is different• Our industry is 4 times the size• Vets in DK have more flexible rules for Rx• Has the FDA been wrong until now?• Will we learn from the Danes?• Will we stand and fight or appease the
activists?• Will junk science and activism win the day?
What can producers do?• Follow Prudent and Judicious Use
Guidelines and AMDUCA• Treat Antibiotic Use as a privilege, not a
right• Be able to discuss the uses of antibiotics
with interested parties– Take any chance to educate the public by
becoming a risk communicator – for production agriculture, public health and food safety
• Be involved in producer and community activities• Think globally…act locally!
11
What can producers do?• Always take the high road….put welfare
first!• Be cognizant of the economic effects of
antibiotics but be aware that this is not an issue with activists
• Remember that herd or flock treatment, while medically necessary at times, is perceived negatively
What can producers do?• Utilize the “Take Care – Use antibiotics
responsibly” program from NPB • Don’t roll over and start down the
“slippery slope” (creeping incrementalism)
• Remember, antibiotic use in livestock is not the real issue with the activists…so don’t appease them.
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
Winston Churchill
Producing without AGPs
”It is possible –
but it is not an easy task”
Kjeldsen 2002
12
top related